This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Federal judge blocks Georgia immigration law

Originally Posted by Marshabar

I'm really curious to see if Republicans do any better. The border has been unsecured for at least thirty years under both Democrats and Republicans. I used to think it was because Republicans were giving their supporters cheap labor and Democrats were building their base.

Republican as in national Republicans? No, I have no faith in any of them. It's why states are having to take their own actions.

Re: Federal judge blocks Georgia immigration law

Originally Posted by Marshabar

I'm really curious to see if Republicans do any better. The border has been unsecured for at least thirty years under both Democrats and Republicans. I used to think it was because Republicans were giving their supporters cheap labor and Democrats were building their base.

I now believe the border is unsecured because the world banking cartel is getting us ready to more seamlessly blend into the new world order. They think they've dumbed enough of us down and now they need to dilute the independent minded population with more tractable and obedient inhabitants.

When the Republicans were running the show, the unemployment rate was half what it is now.

Re: Federal judge blocks Georgia immigration law

Originally Posted by krickitt

The Feds need to get out of the way if they refuse to enforce the laws, and let the states do it. Imagine a USA without illegals.. 30% less in prison, reduction in crime, the savings in welfare ALONE could cover all the uninsured Americans without spending one more cent on Oblamacare.. jobs.. remember jobs?? In Georgia they pay illegals $100 a day to pick Vidalia onions. Lots of unemployed Americans will pick onions for $100 a day rather than be on the gov't dole. If some states choose to keep this national nightmare going-- let them. We don't want to in AZ. But sanctuary states really should not whine for Fed money if they keep enabling the problem.

Georgia is having lots of trouble due to the shortage of farm workers.

Re: Federal judge blocks Georgia immigration law

Thrash wrote that under parts of the law, the state is enforcing immigration law that should be left to the federal government.

He's right about that. It is a federal responsibility. Why they don't accept that responsibility and do something effective about illegal immigration is another question. Now, that raises a third issue:

If the federal government can block a state from trying to take on something that is the responsibility of the federal government, could a state then block the federal government from taking on an issue that belongs to the state?

"Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Re: Federal judge blocks Georgia immigration law

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

He's right about that. It is a federal responsibility. Why they don't accept that responsibility and do something effective about illegal immigration is another question. Now, that raises a third issue:

If the federal government can block a state from trying to take on something that is the responsibility of the federal government, could a state then block the federal government from taking on an issue that belongs to the state?

Yes. That happens all the time. States have kicked us out of investigations before hundreds of times. It happens a lot with DEA guys since their jurisdiction tends to cross paths with local narcotics units. A good example would be bank robbery, which is federal jurisdiction. If a car in the parking lot of the bank were stolen, the states/locals will argue jurisdiction over that car and the suspects stealing that car, and likely end up a part of the FBI investigation. In this case though, as I've mentioned, there is a specific law, INA 287g, which states that for a state/local police force to enforce immigration law, it must be done under ICE supervision and with written consent from the DOJ/DHS (I believe it's DOJ, it was DOJ last time I heard about it but with the new department that may have changed). In these cases you are usurping 287g and the states are trying to enforce immigration law, which is simply not allowed.

Re: Federal judge blocks Georgia immigration law

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

He's right about that. It is a federal responsibility. Why they don't accept that responsibility and do something effective about illegal immigration is another question. Now, that raises a third issue:

If the federal government can block a state from trying to take on something that is the responsibility of the federal government, could a state then block the federal government from taking on an issue that belongs to the state?

In theory, yes. However, the interstate commerce clause has been so stretched out as to include almost anything, the Feds have created justification to get involved in things it never should have been...

Re: Federal judge blocks Georgia immigration law

Originally Posted by Gargantuan

Yes. That happens all the time. States have kicked us out of investigations before hundreds of times. It happens a lot with DEA guys since their jurisdiction tends to cross paths with local narcotics units. A good example would be bank robbery, which is federal jurisdiction. If a car in the parking lot of the bank were stolen, the states/locals will argue jurisdiction over that car and the suspects stealing that car, and likely end up a part of the FBI investigation. In this case though, as I've mentioned, there is a specific law, INA 287g, which states that for a state/local police force to enforce immigration law, it must be done under ICE supervision and with written consent from the DOJ/DHS (I believe it's DOJ, it was DOJ last time I heard about it but with the new department that may have changed). In these cases you are usurping 287g and the states are trying to enforce immigration law, which is simply not allowed.

With that level of cooperation, it's a wonder our laws get enforced at all.

"Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney